"Perhaps most tellingly of all, the memorandum does not address the competing merits of going into recess and prorogation. It wrongly gives the impression that they are much the same. The Prime Minister’s reaction was to describe the September sitting as a “rigmarole”. Nowhere is there a hint that the Prime Minister, in giving advice to Her Majesty, is more than simply the leader of the Government seeking to promote its own policies; he has a constitutional responsibility, as we have explained in para 30 above.
61. It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, from 9th or 12th September until 14th October. We cannot speculate, in the absence of further evidence, upon what such reasons might have been. It follows that the decision was unlawful."
I'm particularly interested to hear how the PM can say he 'strongly disagrees' with the decision given that I don't think he's legally-qualified and there were no dissenting voices from a bench of eleven Justices.
So, as Parliament resumes its work and scrutiny of the government tomorrow, our unwritten constitution seems to have survived, despite the best endeavours of Boris Johnson and his career psychopath special adviser Dominic Cummings, but surely the position of both is now untenable?
I suspect the events of the last couple of weeks will have struck a chord with probation staff, familiar as they are with the easy propensity with which some clients lie as the automatic default position in any tricky situation. The Whipps Cross Hospital episode where, when cornered by an angry father of a sick child accusing him of just wanting to stage a press stunt, Boris just lied as quick as a flash, straight to a BBC camera.
Of course, in addition to having form as being a proven liar, Boris Johnson displays that other very similar trait often seen in some clients, that of entitlement. The sad thing of course is that despite all this, he will still garner support in certain unsavoury quarters with the likes of Toby Young ridiculously suggesting that if the Judiciary are to have the 'upper hand', then Justices must be subject of questioning and confirmation hearings before appointment to the Supreme Court.
Sadly I suspect there will be much similar nonsense spouted before the day is out, but in the mean time, lets take comfort from a truly momentous day and the Law having taken its clear and utterly unambiguous course in upholding our famously unwritten constitution.
I'm guessing the choice of Lady Hale's brooch was purely accidental.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/style/lady-hale-spider-brooch-shirts-20167343
ReplyDelete"Lady Hale spider brooch t-shirts are on eBay - and profits are going to charity - the genius t-shirts (available online from Balcony Shirts) based on Lady Hale's viral spider brooch have already raised over £5,000 for homeless charity Shelter"
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf
ReplyDeleteDownload yourself a copy for posterity!
Today's judgement is indeed momentous, and rightly or wrongly I'm enjoying every moment of it.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm really looking forward to though is, watching just how John Bercow performs in the Speakers Chair over the coming weeks until he steps down!
He's surely going to create some serious frustration for Boris and Co before he goes.
'Getafix
https://www.localgov.co.uk/London-Assembly-demands-answers-from-PM-about-Jennifer-Arcuri-dealings/48205
DeleteMembers of the London Assembly have written to the PM demanding that he answer questions about his dealings with the model-turned-businesswoman Jennifer Arcuri.
DeleteAccording to an investigation by The Sunday Times, the tech entrepreneur was handed a privileged place on Mr Johnson’s overseas trade trips while he was the mayor of London.
Ms Arcuri was also given a total of £126,000 in public money and has described Mr Johnson, who was allegedly a regular visitor to her Shoreditch apartment, as ‘one of her best friends’.
Len Duvall, chair of the London Assembly GLA Oversight Committee, has written to the prime minister asking for details of all contact with Ms Arcuri, including social, personal and professional, during his period of office as mayor of London.
He also asked for an explanation of how that alleged personal relationship was disclosed and taken into account in any dealings with the Greater London Authority.
He has been given 14 days to respond to the allegations.
The Prime Minister’s Office has been contacted for a response.
I find Para.65 of the judgement particularly joyous, whereby the greed of MPs & their subsequent efforts to avoid prosecution has contributed to this decision:
ReplyDelete"65. The first point to note is that these are Acts of Parliament. It is one of the principal roles of the courts to interpret Acts of Parliament. A recent example of this Court interpreting article 9 is R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52; [2011] 1 AC 684. The case concerned the prosecution of several Members of Parliament for allegedly making false expenses claims. They resisted this on the ground that those claims were “proceedings in Parliament” which ought not to be “impeached or questioned” in any court outside Parliament. An enlarged panel of nine Justices held unanimously that MPs’ expenses claims were not “proceedings in Parliament” nor were they in the exclusive cognisance of Parliament."
The Supreme Court judgment and what this means for Parliament
ReplyDeleteFollowing the Supreme Court's judgment that the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful, the 2017-19 parliamentary session will resume on 25 September 2019.
The House of Commons will sit at 11.30am. There will be no oral questions and so no Prime Minister's Questions. The business will begin with urgent questions, followed by any ministerial statements. Applications for emergency debates may also be heard.
Speaker statement
The Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow said:
"I welcome the Supreme Court’s judgment that the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful. The judges have rejected the Government’s claim that closing down Parliament for five weeks was merely standard practice to allow for a new Queen’s Speech. In reaching their conclusion, they have vindicated the right and duty of Parliament to meet at this crucial time to scrutinise the executive and hold Ministers to account. As the embodiment of our Parliamentary democracy, the House of Commons must convene without delay. To this end, I will now consult the party leaders as a matter of urgency."
Prime Minister's Questions
There will be no Prime Minister's Questions tomorrow as two days notice must be given of questions.
Business for 25 September 2019
The Order Paper for tomorrow will be published later today.
There will be no Prime Minister's Questions tomorrow as two days notice must be given of questions.
Ministerial statements, and applications for urgent questions and emergency debates will be allowed.
Business is expected to start at 11.30am with urgent questions.
Apparently the FT has a policy to never demand resignations:-
ReplyDeleteThe ruling by the UK Supreme Court is a devastating indictment of the abuse of power by a prime minister — and of the holder of that office, Boris Johnson. The 11 judges unanimously concluded that Mr Johnson’s five-week suspension of parliament was an unlawful attempt to silence MPs, at the very moment the UK, through Brexit, faces the biggest shake-up in its constitutional status for decades. Mr Johnson’s claim that the suspension was a routine break before a new legislative session stands exposed. The judges found the prime minister in effect misled MPs, the British people, and the Queen. No future premier will be able to act this way again. The judges’ ruling marks a historic moment in the evolution of the UK constitution.
The court’s decision was a much-needed reminder that, even in the most testing political circumstances, Britain remains a representative democracy underpinned by the rule of law. MPs are elected to exercise their good judgment and take decisions on behalf of constituents. They hold to account a government formed from among their number. The executive is accountable to parliament, and parliament to the people. Removing parliament, even for a matter of weeks, breaks the chain of accountability. The UK system cannot allow a cabal around the prime minister to determine by itself the “will of the people” and attempt to implement it, while sidelining those whom the people elected to represent them. This is the road to tyranny.
The judges issued a judgment of impeccable logic and clarity. To those, including the government and the High Court in London, that argued prorogation is a political matter and no business of the courts they delivered a resounding rejoinder. Courts have for centuries exercised supervisory jurisdiction over whether government actions are lawful. In 1611, a court held that the King — who was then the government — “hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him”.
The power to suspend parliament, the judges found, is limited if it conflicts with parliament’s sovereign power to make laws, and the government’s accountability to parliament. Prorogation is unlawful if its effect prevents parliament from fulfilling its functions — without a very good reason. In one of the most stinging passages of their ruling, the judges found the effect of Mr Johnson’s actions on British democracy was “extreme”, and that the government had put forward no proper justification.
The Supreme Court focused on effect and not, as senior Scottish judges had done, on the government’s presumed motive. Yet in delivering a unanimous judgment whose essence mirrored that of Scotland’s highest court, the judges brought together English and Scottish law. They implicitly demolished the hints from Downing Street that the Scottish judges might somehow be partisan. Since the prime minister’s advice to the Queen was unlawful and void, they ultimately concluded, prorogation was also void. Their judgment shows that the checks and balances in Britain’s unwritten constitution are working.
The spectacle of the courts ruling on parliamentary matters has caused understandable discomfort. Yet the judges intervened not of their own initiative. Their involvement was prompted by the prime minister’s own cavalier actions, and by the disquiet they provoked among many members of the public — including one of Mr Johnson’s Conservative predecessors as premier. In truth, the Supreme Court had little choice but to rule as it did. To find otherwise would have opened a dangerous path to a future prime minister suspending parliament indefinitely, brandishing a prior ruling that such decisions were no matter for the courts.
DeleteThe ruling will restore some of the lustre to British democracy ground away by the chaotic handling of Brexit. This newspaper had argued that if Mr Johnson’s constitutional chicanery succeeded as intended, the UK would be poorly placed to criticise democratic shortcomings elsewhere. The Supreme Court, a fledgling institution barely 10 years old, has struck a blow for liberal democracy.
When strongman leaders, even in advanced democracies, are attempting to bypass legislatures or due process, the ruling sends a powerful message. In the age of fake news and alternative realities, it is refreshing that judges saw through Downing Street’s skulduggery.
Ardent Brexiters will dismiss the ruling as an “establishment” plot to thwart their determination to see the UK leave the EU at all costs. There have been disgraceful attempts to portray the judges as “enemies of the people”. This was not, however, a judgment on or against Brexit, but on the limits of executive power. The effect is to restore parliament’s ability to ensure the 2016 referendum outcome is respected, but not through a calamitous no-deal exit.
Mr Johnson’s no-deal strategy lies in tatters. Prorogation, always a high-risk gambit, has galvanised MPs to use the short time they had to bind Mr Johnson’s hands with legislation, and cost him his majority. Now this ruling leaves a stain on his character and competence. Faced with such a damning judgment, any premier with a shred of respect for British democracy and the responsibilities of his office would resign.
Mr Johnson has indicated he intends to carry on. He will attempt to brazen out this setback, as he has previous episodes that raised questions over his suitability for office. The reconvened parliament should have no truck with such behaviour, and pass a vote of no confidence in the premier. It should use its right to form a caretaker government that can secure an extension to the October 31 Brexit date and organise a general election. The judges have spoken. Now the people should have their say. This is how Britain’s constitutional democracy works.
Form a caretaking government, secure an extension to October 31st Brexit date and have a general election. No, there was a democratic vote, the result, leave, so lets just get on with it and do it. There is no way Corbyn should get the reins to the house, so lets hope they do call a general election and give the 2 main parties their P45,s. Or will that upset too many people so that a second general election is called to try and reinstate them again!!
DeleteWhat has it all come to in GaGa land.
I continue in my belief that Brexit is impossible to deliver, for a number of reasons, not least that the Nation is completely divided. It was absurd to allow for a simple majority for such a fundamental decision - any sensible country normally requires a two-thirds majority for any major constitutional change. Brexit will not happen and both main political parties are destined to split. This nightmare has a long way to go yet.
Deletethe United Kingdom 2019 population is estimated at 67,530,172 people at mid year according to UN data. the United Kingdom population is equivalent to 0.88% of the total world population.
DeleteHow does 17.4m represent the will of the people?
What happens to the other 50m?
You can't ask the people of this country to vote nationally then preside over those who don't vote because the result didn't go in favour of remain. Next time we vote in a general election do we therefore say, well ex amount of people didn't vote so lets do it again. Absolute wasted argument.
Delete46.5m people were registered to vote in 2016 when the population was 65.6m.
Delete33.6m people voted in the referendum.
That's 72.2% of those registered to vote & about 51% of the total population.
17.4m voted to Leave
~ 51.9% of those voting
~ 37.4% of those registered to vote
~ 26.5% of the total population
16.1m voted to Remain
~ 48.1% of voters - approx 3.8% fewer
~ 34.6% of those reg'd to vote - approx 2.8% fewer
~ 24.5% of the total population - approx 2% fewer
Are those margins truly sufficient to warrant the social & economic purgatory we find ourselves in? A stress that is magnified many more times in Northern Ireland.
And not one of those voting Leave *or* Remain was given any indication as to what Leaving might involve; nothing, that is, beyond the lies & deceptions of various groups with varying agendas.
It is truly frightening how the population has been manipulated by a handful of uber-wealthy bullies & gamers who only stand to gain whatever happens, and who will lose nothing except perhaps a job title.
Bugger - somehow omitted these statistics:
Delete- 46.5m registered voters of the 65.6m population = 70.8% of the total population
- 72.2% of 70.8% simply confirms that about 51% of the total population voted
And now I shall go back to counting sheep.